Believin' "IN" it idn't gonna git it!

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes. I can understand and accept the "loose language" of saying "I believe X to be true" instead of saying "I assert X to be true". So long as it's understood that it's the assertion that matters, and is at issue, NOT the "belief". And certainly not the "unbelief".

True. I said something similar awhile back of saying why not say "I 'know' this is true (for me)" instead of believe-believe-believe. Why would someone believe something (and say it) if they did not believe it is true. Maybe it's to avoid argument over truth-claims. Though, I think they have their place in context of the discussion. "Belief" is kind of passive and "safe" to use.

In this particular instance, you have not actually asserted the existence of God as a truth, to me. And I would have no reason, then, to take your exposition as such. Whereas if you were to assert your 'belief' as a truth claim (true beyond yourself) then I would have to take it as such, and consider it as such. The problem is that the word "believe" as it is persistently being used does not clarify whether it's a personal choice, or an implied truth. As a personal assertion of belief it is of no special consequence to me. But as an assertion of collective truth, it is. And if it is, then the assertion deserves logical, reasoned, support. Where as, as your own personal belief/choice, it does not.

I totally agree. The thing is, well, on RF, is asserting something is true and it's misinterpreted by all readers as proselytizing rather than saying what one holds as true while others don't need to agree the same.

That would mean if someone said "I believe ghosts exist" and another said "I assert ghost existing is true," the latter would be of more interest to you than the former?

If so, I can see that. I agree one can believe in just about anything, to me the latter makes it more personal and worthy of discussion.

Since we here on RF are very often discussing God's existence as a collective truth assertion, requiring logical, reasoned support, we should stop muddying up the discussions by insisting on using the term "I believe" when we mean to assert a collective truth requiring logical, reasoned support, AND when we mean to assert a personal preference that does not require logical, reasoned support.

True. Very true. It works the other way around as well. "I assert god does not exist is true" should take the same importance and consideration as saying he does exist is true. To do so, the playing field needs to be leveled. Believers aren't interested in what people don't believe, they're just interested in what they believe and what they want others to believe (if they get the chance to pull them in conversation-genuine or not).

I had a conversation, well, tried, awhile back about a theist being agnostic about her belief even though she knows it's true beyond a doubt (though doesn't say). I told her if that's how she sees the world, it's alright to assert what she experiences and her practice as true. It's not debative. It's just saying this is how I see the world. I never got through the conversation. Maybe I was too debative when I just was making observation for conversation. Agnostic, belief, and words like is kind of a safe zone. Maybe it's implied that what one believes should signal that's what they know is true. Though, I agree, it's easier to say it. Less ambiguity.

"I believe" = personal preference, not requiring logical, reasoned, support.

"I assert" = a collective truth, requiring logical, reasoned support.

True. How do you talk with a believer from a "I assert god does not exist" perspective without their thinking the questioner wants a. prove that person wrong or b. get defensive as if it tries to prove they are wrong?

The conversation isn't always reciprocal that one keeps with "belief" rather than knowledge. I don't see assertion as a means to debate or challenge the validity of one's truth but even so, on RF, that would be the definition of a debate and the truth, logic, and reason support that backs it up.

The problem is believers need to reciprocate the interest.

It does.

I think the problem is that people don't differentiate these key points in their own minds, and so confuse themselves and everyone else in discussion. And then when I or someone else points it out, they get all ego-defensive and try to 'double down' on their confusion instead of digging into their own minds and learning to differentiate their own thoughts, and assertions to others, more clearly.

True. If we asked someone who is close to their family members do they love them, they'd most likely say "yes, I love my family and my family loves me (this I hold is true" rather than "I believe" they do). Religious thought should be the same if it is someone's life not separated from it.

 

[PureX]

*blinks*

Do... do you seriously never want to hear stories to hear stories? Because they are fun and interesting? Because you are a curious person? Have a love of learning new things? Enjoy the beauty and awe and wonder of the world? If not that... that's really sad, honestly.

Are you seriously not interested in what other people think life is for, and about? Isn't this what the stories are really all about? Do you consider 'entertainment' mindless? And pointless?

 

[PureX]

I don't see much difference between that description and a belief backed by evidence. It almost seems as though you want to categorize it differently for some reason. Just because a belief is asserted as truth is not grounds for no longer calling it a belief, right?

It's not a "belief" backed by evidence, is an assertion backed by evidence. I'm simply pointing out the value of calling it exactly what is it, and the confusion that follows from not doing that. So why the insistence on using the term "belief" when a better word provides greater clarity?

 

[PureX]

Not sure I completely follow. Is this a big-words way of saying, skip to the reasons/evidence, bro?

Have you been coming on here all these years raging that people are doing words wrong?

Why use the vague and subjective term when we could use the more clear and accurate term? And why all the resistance? What is it about the word "belief" that drives people to use it even when other, better, more clear and accurate words are available?

 

[PureX]

I tend to agree with you, though your level of concern is considerably higher than mine.

Mostly, I started this thread so we could discuss SOMETHING besides the Trump Disaster. And I chose this subject simply because it keeps coming up, and is so easily resolved. So I just don't understand the resistance.

 

[Yerda]

Why use the vague and subjective term when we could use the more clear and accurate term? And why all the resistance? What is it about the word "belief" that drives people to use it even when other, better, more clear and accurate words are available?

Habit, I suppose.

This honestly hasn't ever really stood out to me, is it causing problems with the message being conveyed or damaging the clarity?

I nearly asked if you believe it's a problem there. See, habits.

 

[PureX]

The thing is, well, on RF, is asserting something is true and it's misinterpreted by all readers as proselytizing rather than saying what one holds as true while others don't need to agree the same.

That would mean if someone said "I believe ghosts exist" and another said "I assert ghost existing is true," the latter would be of more interest to you than the former?

If so, I can see that. I agree one can believe in just about anything, to me the latter makes it more personal and worthy of discussion.

To me, if someone says "I believe in (the existence of) ghosts", what is there to say but, "well, good for you" (or something similar)? A statement of personal believe is of not meaningful consequence to anyone else. In fact, why even bring it up? UNLESS ... you want to discuss the viability of it as truth. In which case, what one should be doing is asserting the existence of ghosts as truth (not asserting it as belief). Once it's asserted as truth, then the expectation of logical reasoning in support of the assertion comes into play, and the discussion.debate is on. And everyone involved will know it.

This is why I object to people using the term "I believe ..." when they mean "I assert ...". And don;t even get me started on the absurdity of positing one's "unbelief"!

It works the other way around as well. "I assert god does not exist is true" should take the same importance and consideration as saying he does exist is true. To do so, the playing field needs to be leveled. Believers aren't interested in what people don't believe, they're just interested in what they believe and what they want others to believe (if they get the chance to pull them in conversation-genuine or not).

The fact is that no one is interested in what anyone 'believes', but the believers. What we're interested in, is what people hold and assert to be true. Because that's when their propositions involve us. Why on Earth would anyone posit their "unbelief"? What do they expect anyone else to do with such a complete lack of information, and conviction? Yet I hear this posited all the time, as if it were supposed to mean something. It means less than nothing to anyone with the capacity to reason.

I had a conversation, well, tried, awhile back about a theist being agnostic about her belief even though she knows it's true beyond a doubt (though doesn't say). I told her if that's how she sees the world, it's alright to assert what she experiences and her practice as true. It's not debative. It's just saying this is how I see the world. I never got through the conversation. Maybe I was too debative when I just was making observation for conversation. Agnostic, belief, and words like is kind of a safe zone. Maybe it's implied that what one believes should signal that's what they know is true. Though, I agree, it's easier to say it. Less ambiguity.

But all this confusion is exactly why it's so important that we clarify in our minds, and then through our words, the differences between what we know, what we assume, what we choose to believe, and what we trust in even though we don't know. Or so it seems to me.

If we asked someone who is close to their family members do they love them, they'd most likely say "yes, I love my family and my family loves me (this I hold is true" rather than "I believe" they do). Religious thought should be the same if it is someone's life not separated from it.

Good point.

 

[PureX]

Habit, I suppose.

This honestly hasn't ever really stood out to me, is it causing problems with the message being conveyed or damaging the clarity?

I nearly asked if you believe it's a problem there. See, habits.

It's not much of a problem in 'real life'. But it causes a lot of misunderstanding on here.

 

[Cooky]

So, for what seems like several decades, now, I have been struggling to point out to some of you on here that no one cares what any of us "believes in". And that we care even less (if that's possible) about what anyone "disbelieves in". What we actually care about, if we care about what each other has to say at all, is what you are asserting to be true. Whether or not you believe it to be true is of no consequence to us, because the truthfulness of what you are asserting is in no way buoyed up nor undermined by the degree to which you believe or "unbelieve in" it. Such that all we're actually interested in is the assertion, and why you are holding it forth as being true. Because our knowing these may strengthen or weaken or otherwise change or enhance whatever ideas we are holding to be true, ourselves.

I don't know how to say it any clearer that this.

But it's been to no avail. Y'all continue to pointlessly announce to all that you "believe in" this or that, or that you "unbelieve in" it, as if this were supposed to mean something to us. And although it doesn't, I can see that I must surrender to the irrepressible persistence in offering this pointless proclamation. Nothing I say is going to stop you.

However, I still doggedly refuse surrender to the use of the term "in" being added to the use of this term, "believe".

I can grudgingly accept that you assert; "I believe X = X" (even though I still don't care that you believe it, or how strongly you believe it). But I have no idea what you even mean when you proclaim that you "believe in X = X". Or the even crazier variation; that you "believe on X = X". It really is just nonsensical gibberish at this point, and I just cannot in good conscience allow it to pass as any kind of bona fide information transferal.

So, hence forth, be warned.

Aside from pointing out what one believes in, what else is there in religious discussion? Finding out might be helpful... But only if you feel compelled to answer.

...I think I know know what @Debater Slayer was saying earlier about splitting hairs... But for me, I honestly can't see any difference between what should be done, and what shouldn't, according to what I've read here.

 

[Willamena]

It's not a "belief" backed by evidence, is an assertion backed by evidence. I'm simply pointing out the value of calling it exactly what is it, and the confusion that follows from not doing that. So why the insistence on using the term "belief" when a better word provides greater clarity?

"God exists."

"The Eiffel Tower exists."

Such an assertion is a belief, by definition. There is no better word for an assertion that holds the expectation of being true.

 

[Brian2]

I can grudgingly accept that you assert; "I believe X = X" (even though I still don't care that you believe it, or how strongly you believe it). But I have no idea what you even mean when you proclaim that you "believe in X = X". Or the even crazier variation; that you "believe on X = X". It really is just nonsensical gibberish at this point, and I just cannot in good conscience allow it to pass as any kind of bona fide information transferal.

So, hence forth, be warned.

Yes I have wondered about the in and on bits. In the end you just go along with it and end up using the terminology. I could say "I believe Jesus" but it seems to make more sense to say "I believe in Jesus" and I presume it means have faith in.

 

[blü 2]

Mostly, I started this thread so we could discuss SOMETHING besides the Trump Disaster. And I chose this subject simply because it keeps coming up, and is so easily resolved. So I just don't understand the resistance.

Good luck!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

To me, if someone says "I believe in (the existence of) ghosts", what is there to say but, "well, good for you" (or something similar)? A statement of personal believe is of not meaningful consequence to anyone else. In fact, why even bring it up? UNLESS ... you want to discuss the viability of it as truth. In which case, what one should be doing is asserting the existence of ghosts as truth (not asserting it as belief). Once it's asserted as truth, then the expectation of logical reasoning in support of the assertion comes into play, and the discussion.debate is on. And everyone involved will know it.

This is why I object to people using the term "I believe ..." when they mean "I assert ...". And don;t even get me started on the absurdity of positing one's "unbelief"!

True. This varies by a person's personality and interest, though. Some people don't mind talking about each other's beliefs given it doesn't impose on the other person's belief system (a comfort zone approach). Maybe they're not used to debates over their belief system or maybe their belief system (or whatever personal subject it may be) they'd feel is being devalued if it were challenged as a fact or truth. Which, I can respect that opinion but on RF, I would agree and expect a stronger approach if one is to debate. I know a couple of people who post in a debate, and when I ask questions to challenge that belief and learn about it at the same time, they stop replying. Maybe truth-statements make people feel they are opened to be challenged and that's not their nature or are threatened.

But yes. I agree if something were debated, presented as an assertion of fact or truth not as a belief.

The fact is that no one is interested in what anyone 'believes', but the believers. What we're interested in, is what people hold and assert to be true. Because that's when their propositions involve us. Why on Earth would anyone posit their "unbelief"? What do they expect anyone else to do with such a complete lack of information, and conviction? Yet I hear this posited all the time, as if it were supposed to mean something. It means less than nothing to anyone with the capacity to reason.

Yes. Yes. Exactly.

With lack of belief doesn't mean lack of conviction. It just means one person believes X and the other doesn't. It's very straightforward. I do think that if non-believers said "I assert god does not exist" it can be challenged just the same as the assertion that "god does exist." The word belief isn't needed, of course. Though, some biases kind of damage the conversation one being nonbelievers don't have spiritual lives and all believers have the same description of god.

But all this confusion is exactly why it's so important that we clarify in our minds, and then through our words, the differences between what we know, what we assume, what we choose to believe, and what we trust in even though we don't know. Or so it seems to me.

Exactly. My question is why won't people assert what they "know" is true to others....

Another thing a little off context-topic is if we started speaking our mind as assertions, readers may think we are proselyting and rather than opinion. Tricky ground unless some guidelines are agreed upon by both parties-which means observers would have to take more things in context in order for belief to shift to fact assertions.

Good point.

 

[Quintessence]

Are you seriously not interested in what other people think life is for, and about? Isn't this what the stories are really all about? Do you consider 'entertainment' mindless? And pointless?

Wha... where is this nonsense coming from? How does this relate at all to what I was responding to? You made the baseless assertion that:

I would assert that your 'reality' is a whole collection of 'stories' (just as all of ours' are), and you want to use their stories to make your own stories 'better'.

... and I corrected that because this is wrong. What does ... what are you even going on about with this new question? Are... are you OK? I mean, my response literally contained examples of caring about what other people think life is for - being curious about things and wanting to learn covers that, PureX.

 

[MikeF]

So, for what seems like several decades, now, I have been struggling to point out to some of you on here that no one cares what any of us "believes in". And that we care even less (if that's possible) about what anyone "disbelieves in". What we actually care about, if we care about what each other has to say at all, is what you are asserting to be true. Whether or not you believe it to be true is of no consequence to us, because the truthfulness of what you are asserting is in no way buoyed up nor undermined by the degree to which you believe or "unbelieve in" it. Such that all we're actually interested in is the assertion, and why you are holding it forth as being true. Because our knowing these may strengthen or weaken or otherwise change or enhance whatever ideas we are holding to be true, ourselves.

I don't know how to say it any clearer that this.

But it's been to no avail. Y'all continue to pointlessly announce to all that you "believe in" this or that, or that you "unbelieve in" it, as if this were supposed to mean something to us. And although it doesn't, I can see that I must surrender to the irrepressible persistence in offering this pointless proclamation. Nothing I say is going to stop you.

However, I still doggedly refuse surrender to the use of the term "in" being added to the use of this term, "believe".

I can grudgingly accept that you assert; "I believe X = X" (even though I still don't care that you believe it, or how strongly you believe it). But I have no idea what you even mean when you proclaim that you "believe in X = X". Or the even crazier variation; that you "believe on X = X". It really is just nonsensical gibberish at this point, and I just cannot in good conscience allow it to pass as any kind of bona fide information transferal.

So, hence forth, be warned.

What if you just assume that whenever someone uses the word "believe", they mean "assert". If they don't back up their belief, tell them so and move on.

 

[PureX]

"God exists."

"The Eiffel Tower exists."

Such an assertion is a belief, by definition. There is no better word for an assertion that holds the expectation of being true.

"I believe in the Eiffel Tower".

"I disbelieve in the Eiffel Tower".

See how nonsensical that is? What matters to others is your assertion, bot your believing in it.

 

[PureX]

What if you just assume that whenever someone uses the word "believe", they mean "assert". If they don't back up their belief, tell them so and move on.

It's not my place to question or judge what other people believe. UNLESS they are asserting that I should also believe it to be true. This is why the term "believe" is inadequate, and why what matters to me is what they are asserting as truth, to me.

 

[Left Coast]

"I believe in the Eiffel Tower".

"I disbelieve in the Eiffel Tower".

See how nonsensical that is? What matters to others is your assertion, bot your believing in it.

It's not "nonsensical," Pure, it's just not the typical grammar for that sentence. We'd instead say, "I [don't] believe the Eiffel Tower exists." "Believe in" is a phrase usually used to refer to abstractions and whether they accurately describe the world, e.g. "I believe in astrology," "I believe in communism," etc.

And I don't know why you're attempting to mind-read what everyone else cares about. Depending who the person is, I very much care what others believe.

This whole thing just seems like an idiosyncratic semantic hangup of yours.

 

[MikeF]

It's not my place to question or judge what other people believe. UNLESS they are asserting that I should also believe it to be true. This is why the term "believe" is inadequate, and why what matters to me is what they are asserting as truth, to me.

I sense real frustration and possible anger expressed in the OP. All I can say is we cannot control the behavior of others. We all do not have the same background and experiences. We have to take each other as we are. It is my understanding that DIR's are set up so that people can express their belief without judgement. In the general areas, however, are we not sharing our views with others to have them considered and evaluated?

I think you should not get too caught up in word choice, and focus on context and intent. Ask for clarification if needed, but don't get upset if someone cannot adequately express themselves in the way you feel they should. Give us imperfect humans a little slack.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It's not a "belief" backed by evidence, is an assertion backed by evidence. I'm simply pointing out the value of calling it exactly what is it, and the confusion that follows from not doing that. So why the insistence on using the term "belief" when a better word provides greater clarity?

I suppose. Though this flies in the face of a lot of arguments brought to bear by a lot of theists, who like to claim that everything is a belief in order to put any fanciful idea that they desire to hold on par with all the actual knowledge and useful information we've accumulated as human beings since the dawning of our species. I've been mostly forced to concede the point that everything I espouse myself to in an intellectual/philosophical capacity ultimately has its roots in belief on a fair number of occasions. Enough to know that calling it, instead, an "assertion" isn't going to be effectual in changing anyone's mind - nor slow down their attempts to deconstruct the entire universe and all we know about it in order to (not sure why they feel this works in their favor, but here we are) insert "God" everywhere we look.